Connect with us

The Swamp

Trump Reinstates Feds’ Power Over Local Police Departments In Major Deep State Win

Published

on

Trump caves in to unions and military elites, ignoring the lessons passed on to us by America’s Founding Fathers.

President Donald Trump just lifted a ban on the transfer of military surplus equipment to local police departments that had been put in place by the Barack Obama administration.

While Obama’s action was far from sound, as he failed to address the root of the police militarization problem when he blocked armored vehicles and other heavy military grade equipment from being shipped to local police departments, Trump’s actions seem to, again, go against the core principle his campaign seemed to rely on. Instead of “making America great again” by going back to the principles championed by the Founding Fathers, Trump decided to cave in to the powerful within the military industrial complex and police union ranks using “public safety” as an excuse.

Trending: Grassroots Leaders Send Final Warning to GOP Establishment: Rejecting Trump Means Death of Republican Party

What he seems to miss, even as a self-styled “America First” president, is that when power is removed from the American communities and police departments are allowed to seek bribes from the federal government, it’s the small town American Joe who voted for him who hurts the most.

take our poll - story continues below

POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024?

  • POLL: Will Republican Senators vote to impeach Trump and ban him from running in 2024? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Police militarization has, over the years, become a prop for left-leaning activists. But much like with anything else many of them embrace as an issue, they often miss the mark, frequently attributing their problems to vague ideas of what police brutality is and asking for more federal government interference as a means to have the problem solved.

But without looking at the history of police militarization and what’s at stake, we cannot understand what needs to be done to address both the right’s fears revolving the growing power the federal government has over local policing and the left’s fears regarding police brutality.

History shows us that the lessons America’s Founders learned while under British rule helped them draft the U.S. Constitution with a Bill of Rights that enshrines the Castle Doctrine. With roots that can be traced to antiquity and more recently to British common law, the doctrine maintains that “a man’s home is his castle.” As such, the Third and Fourth Amendments were put in place to keep the suspicious sentiment our Founders nurtured against standing armies alive and to protect a person’s home or anything he occupies, shielding the proprietor from prosecution if he uses deadly force to protect his “castle.”

Most importantly, perhaps, is that the Founders knew the Roman Republic had been overthrown by power-thirsty military leaders.

Seeing members of the British army take over the homes of hard-working Americans during the American Revolution, the Founders remained suspicious of powerful military forces and yes, martial law, deciding to make sure the law of the land would thus serve as a reminder to future Americans that local policing works best if run my communities themselves — not an all mighty federal bureaucracy.

As incremental changes over the centuries continued to give the executive greater power and control over the lives of ordinary Americans across all states, something even greater went down in the 1960s, when President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed 19 people to run his Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA).

Tasked with changing the U.S. criminal justice system and “[streaming] the federal funding, equipment, and technology to state and local law enforcement agencies,” as author Radley Balko put it in the Rise of The Warrior Cop, the creation of LEAA would later serve as a precedent for programs such as the Pentagon’s 1033 program and the Byrne grants, helping the executive to, in a sense, bribe local police forces to adopt their policies.

In essence, this move, along with Johnson’s creation of the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD), would also give President Richard Nixon the weapons he needed to launch a major war on drugs that would finally put an end to the Castle Doctrine protections enshrined in the Constitution by the Founders. In no time, federal rules restricting gun rights were being forced upon local law enforcement, as well as other rules concerning surveillance, no-knock raids, and confiscation of private property without due process.

As you can see, Trump could have looked at the ban on the transfer of military surplus equipment as a failure of the Obama administration, as the former president was incapable of addressing an issue that goes well beyond the current militarization problem.

With a powerful military industrial complex, or “deep state,” apparently calling the shots in Washington, D.C., and police unions lobbying the administration for weapons used by the U.S. military solely for wars, Trump is failing to cut the federal government’s influence with local police departments. As the Founders feared, standing armies are now, once again, allowed to flourish under him or any other president who follows. And with so much material to bribe local authorities with, there will be no department or sheriff’s office left when the feds come knocking, demanding their help on whatever new unconstitutional power grab they are after.

 

 

 

 

The Swamp

Dan Crenshaw White Knights for Liz Cheney After Republicans Blast Her Support for Trump’s Second Impeachment

Birds of a feather flock together.

Published

on

Liz Cheney, daughter of Dick, was one of ten GOP House members to vote “yes” on President Donald Trump’s unprecedented second impeachment. Then when some were calling on Cheney to resign over her disgraceful vote, Dan Crenshaw, who voted against impeachment, quickly came to her defense and announced his “full support” for her.

“Let’s get some truth on the record: @Liz_Cheney has a hell of a lot more backbone than most, & is a principled leader with a fierce intellect,” Crenshaw tweeted Wednesday afternoon. “She will continue to be a much needed leader in the conference, with my full support.”

“We can disagree without tearing each other apart,” he added.

Crenshaw himself was then roundly criticized in the replies to his tweet.

Cheney’s vote comes as no surprise. Big League Politics reported on her recent statement in support of Trump’s second impeachment, part of which read: “There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution. I will vote to impeach the President.” For this CNN laughably called her the “conscience of Republicans.”

Read More: No, Liz Cheney is Not the Future of the GOP

As the old saying goes, “birds of a feather flock together.” Dan Crenshaw and Liz Cheney most certainly do not represent the future of the GOP.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending